As someone else who lives in a warm place during the winter: Fark all the old people. I work in a hospital and we have multiple people every summer that get killed or badly injured by old people who run a red light, stomp the gas instead of the brake, or flat out don't see a stop sign.

Recommendation: Take a drivers test every two years for people of all ages. If you're declared incompetent to drive during the test then it is a felony if you get caught behind the wheel.

Suckmaster Burstingfoam:Wow, if only you could administer a cognitive test to determine whether someone is allowed to own guns. Like, anyone exhibiting psychosis e.g. belief in government conspiracies, lizard people, or Biblical creation.

I just solved your stupid gun problem, USA.

Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.

In Britain your license automatically expires at age 70, and you have to re-take the test in order to renew it. In Australia, after 75 you have to have a yearly physical exam, and after 85 you also have to re-take the driving test every 2 years

Some states already have restrictions on renewal over age 70-75, but those are a lot less restrictive, usually just that you can no longer renew by mail.

Suckmaster Burstingfoam:Wow, if only you could administer a cognitive test to determine whether someone is allowed to own guns. Like, anyone exhibiting psychosis e.g. belief in government conspiracies, lizard people, or Biblical creation.

I just solved your stupid gun problem, USA.

Guns in the home are significantly more likely to end up accidentally killing family members than killing criminals. It's a self-limiting problem.

In fact, legalize bigger guns and maybe those people will wipe themselves out.

Dear gosh, I would like an honest law that requires real testing.I had a 96 year old try and cross four lanes of traffic, I went up and over him with my truck and put his 86 year old wife into the hospital with crushed ribs. 100% his fault according to the police report. I needed surgery, air bags kept my then kindergartner from any harm. I had picked up the kid less than five minutes before this.

My current license is good for 12 years. I would not care if every year after 60 I am required a road test and vision test. Make it part of a reduced insurance requirement.

L.D. Ablo:Winters are hell down here in Yuma, Arizona because of the old drivers.

Sun Lakes and Ocotillo in Chandler is the same. I had so many close calls every year, especially in shopping center parking lots, I just decided to shop elsewhere when that time of the year came along. Very glad I don't live in the area anymore.

We just took the keys away from my 86 year old mother. I told her, " The family who you didnt kill because we took away the keys thanks us." She didn't understand wtf I was going on about, and the rest of us knew we were right.

DemonEater:In Britain your license automatically expires at age 70, and you have to re-take the test in order to renew it. In Australia, after 75 you have to have a yearly physical exam, and after 85 you also have to re-take the driving test every 2 years

Some states already have restrictions on renewal over age 70-75, but those are a lot less restrictive, usually just that you can no longer renew by mail.

Illinois makes all drivers over 75 take a driving test at every renewal. Licenses are good for 4 years until 80. From 81-86, licenses are good for 2 years. After 86, licenses are good for one year.

Also any driver of any age who has gotten a ticket since their last renewal must take a written exam.

goatleggedfellow:Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Wow, if only you could administer a cognitive test to determine whether someone is allowed to own guns. Like, anyone exhibiting psychosis e.g. belief in government conspiracies, lizard people, or Biblical creation.

I just solved your stupid gun problem, USA.

Guns in the home are significantly more likely to end up accidentally killing family members than killing criminals. It's a self-limiting problem.

In fact, legalize bigger guns and maybe those people will wipe themselves out.

Awesome, America. Good to see you moved on from that school shooting thing so fast. I guess it gets easier each time...

Sin_City_Superhero:Warlordtrooper:Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.

Black people were deprived of the right to vote until 1870. Women couldn't vote until the 1920's.

You mean they didn't have the right to vote until those years. They weren't Constitutionally protected rights, so they didn't have them. Before the 15th and 19th amendments, there was nothing unconstitutional about denying them suffrage. Gun ownership has been a Constitutionally protected right since 1791. Driving is not. I'm confused as to the point of your post.

You think the NRA is a powerful lobby? They don't have shiat on the AARP. Old people will never, ever be disqualified from driving because the AARP will never allow it, even if it can be proven that they kill 30,000 people a year.

Warlordtrooper:Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.

Uh, no. That's not how our system works. We all have a constitutionally protected right against warrant-less searches, yet DUI checkpoints have been ruled constitutional by the supreme court as have a great many other forms of warrant-less searches.

There then is the very large question as to what constitutes a firearm suitable for public ownership. Most Republicans consider themselves to be constitutional orientalists, except when it comes to the 2nd amendment. Because when the constitution was originally written, firearms were single shot, very slowly hand-reloading muskets. The framers of the constitution could not possibly have meant for the 2nd amendment to include semi-automatic weapons, as those weapons simply did not exist.

Would it therefore be constitutional for the government to rule that semi-automatic weapons were unfit for public ownership? Yes! Absolutely! In fact, the supreme court has already ruled the government has the constitutional right to limit the ownership of certain types of firearms. Were the government to expand the types of firearms so restricted, it would not require new Supreme Court review, the rulings already exist.

Will semi-automatic weapon ownership be greatly limited? Probably not. Would such limits be constitutional under the supreme court's current interpretation of the constitution? Yes.

Suckmaster Burstingfoam:goatleggedfellow: Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Wow, if only you could administer a cognitive test to determine whether someone is allowed to own guns. Like, anyone exhibiting psychosis e.g. belief in government conspiracies, lizard people, or Biblical creation.

I just solved your stupid gun problem, USA.

Guns in the home are significantly more likely to end up accidentally killing family members than killing criminals. It's a self-limiting problem.

In fact, legalize bigger guns and maybe those people will wipe themselves out.

Awesome, America. Good to see you moved on from that school shooting thing so fast. I guess it gets easier each time...

America is an experiment. Or it used to be. The only experiment we're running now is trying to validate Lord of the Flies on large scale.

goatleggedfellow:Sin_City_Superhero: Warlordtrooper:Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.

Black people were deprived of the right to vote until 1870. Women couldn't vote until the 1920's.

Don't forget, the NRA was in favor of gun control during the Civil Rights era when blah people found out they could use guns to defend their rights.

Interesting argument - gun ownership as a constitutional right as opposed to driving which is a privilege. Perhaps the founding fathers couldn't conceptualize assault rifles and 600 hp horseless carriages, which in the case of weapons makes me wonder if the 2nd deserves any place in a constitutional document.

Bisu:MusketGun ownership has been a Constitutionally protected right since 1791. Driving is not. I'm confused as to the point of your post.

If you don't believe in "Activist Judges" and are a constitutional originalist, clearly the constitution can say nothing about he ownership of semi-automatic weapons, weapons the did not exist at the time of the writing of the constitution.

In reality, the supreme court has ruled that the government has wide leeway in determining which types of firearms are suitable for general public ownership.

RandomRandom:Would it therefore be constitutional for the government to rule that semi-automatic weapons were unfit for public ownership? Yes! Absolutely! In fact, the supreme court has already ruled the government has the constitutional right to limit the ownership of certain types of firearms. Were the government to expand the types of firearms so restricted, it would not require new Supreme Court review, the rulings already exist.

Not that I have any interest in turning this into gun control thread number 8675309, but nevertheless: SCOTUS did say that reasonable restrictions were permissible, but they also applied the "common use" test, so restricting semi-automatic weapons to the extent that the restriction constitutes a ban is a non-starter.

But that's neither here nor there. Driving is not Constitutionally protected, the state can make you forfeit your driving privilege for any reason they choose, whereas there has to be a justified legal reason for the government to take away a Constitutional right such as voting or the right to keep and bear arms.

Bisu:Sin_City_Superhero: Warlordtrooper:Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.

Black people were deprived of the right to vote until 1870. Women couldn't vote until the 1920's.

You mean they didn't have the right to vote until those years. They weren't Constitutionally protected rights, so they didn't have them. Before the 15th and 19th amendments, there was nothing unconstitutional about denying them suffrage. Gun ownership has been a Constitutionally protected right since 1791. Driving is not. I'm confused as to the point of your post.

There was a point in history that a white man could vote, but neither a black (man or woman), nor a woman could vote. Women were people before the 1920's. But they were deprived of the right to vote prior to that, even without being convicted of a felony. Not extending rights to a group is the same thing as depriving them of it.

RandomRandom:The framers of the constitution could not possibly have meant for the 2nd amendment to include semi-automatic weapons, as those weapons simply did not exist..

Incorrect.

The alternative to them wanting the inclusion of semi-automatic weapons is that they wanted only mid 18th century arms to be allowed to the people forever thereafter. That's even less logical considering the origins of the 2nd amendment. You are suggesting they only wanted the military to have weapons developed after 1789, and not the people, even though the entire purpose of the amendment was to give the people the ability to defend against a modernly armed military.

Your suggestion requires the framers be very stupid and short-sighted. It requires them to have wanted only weapons from the past to be included in the "right," but for them to not state that.

If they wanted only pre-1789 weaponry allowed via the 2nd amendment, they would have written that. They didn't.

Sin_City_Superhero:Bisu: Sin_City_Superhero: Warlordtrooper:Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.

Black people were deprived of the right to vote until 1870. Women couldn't vote until the 1920's.

You mean they didn't have the right to vote until those years. They weren't Constitutionally protected rights, so they didn't have them. Before the 15th and 19th amendments, there was nothing unconstitutional about denying them suffrage. Gun ownership has been a Constitutionally protected right since 1791. Driving is not. I'm confused as to the point of your post.

There was a point in history that a white man could vote, but neither a black (man or woman), nor a woman could vote. Women were people before the 1920's. But they were deprived of the right to vote prior to that, even without being convicted of a felony. Not extending rights to a group is the same thing as depriving them of it.

No it's not. You can't deprive someone of a right they have not been granted.

When you are arrested for murdering someone, you aren't being deprived of your right to kill people; there is no such right.

Sin_City_Superhero:Bisu: Sin_City_Superhero: Warlordtrooper:Gun ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. Unless somebody has been convicted of a felony, they can't be deprived of their rights.

Black people were deprived of the right to vote until 1870. Women couldn't vote until the 1920's.

You mean they didn't have the right to vote until those years. They weren't Constitutionally protected rights, so they didn't have them. Before the 15th and 19th amendments, there was nothing unconstitutional about denying them suffrage. Gun ownership has been a Constitutionally protected right since 1791. Driving is not. I'm confused as to the point of your post.

There was a point in history that a white man could vote, but neither a black (man or woman), nor a woman could vote. Women were people before the 1920's. But they were deprived of the right to vote prior to that, even without being convicted of a felony. Not extending rights to a group is the same thing as depriving them of it.

Aren't their rights endowed by their Creator?

In that case, black and women's rights were indeed deprived. Unless you mean to say God changed his mind....

Personally I think everyone should be retested every so often. Shiatty drivers are my pet peeve peave. It's like after they get their license people forget everything they ever learned in drivers ed. Turn signals are not a last minute gesture you use halfway into a turn because you don't want a ticket. You don't need to come to a complete stop when entering a parking lot from the road or when making a turn. A merge lane is for getting up to speed and merging into traffic, not stopping and waiting for all traffic to clear before proceeding into a lane, especially if the merge lane goes over rail road tracks. If people on bicycles are passing by you while driving on a main road maybe it's time you gtf off the goddamn road and let people get by you. At least be willing to get up to the speed limit. Having the passenger hold the wheel while you push the gas so you can search for shiat in the back seat is farking retarded. Cutting across multiple lanes suddenly because your dumbass couldn't pay attention to the road or you didn't know where you're going is a good way to create an accident and get people killed asshole. If you're driving and texting or talking on your cell phone you deserve whatever the hell accident you end up getting in. If you're busted drinking and driving more than twice you should lose your license period. No work permit, no losing it temporarily, no one year bullshiat. No more driving, ever. You lose the ability to get to work, that's your farking fault dipshiat.

I could go all day with this crap. I know I'm not a perfect driver, but I'm at least considerate and I'm mindful of vehicles around me.

Bisu:When you are arrested for murdering someone, you aren't being deprived of your right to kill people; there is no such right.

That's right. There is NO right to commit murder. Not for me. Not for you. Not for a woman, a man, a black a mexican, a genie or anyone else. There is, however, a right to vote. In the 1920's women were granted the right to vote. A right that had existed for black men for 50 years, and for white men a lot longer than that. Apparantly, "We the people" took a while to clarify.

Suckmaster Burstingfoam:Wow, if only you could administer a cognitive test to determine whether someone is allowed to own guns. Like, anyone exhibiting psychosis e.g. belief in government conspiracies, lizard people, or Biblical creation.

I just solved your stupid gun problem, USA.

You're trolling, but I'll answer you. The current psychological tests for potential violence have an error rate of 1 in 3. In other words, they don't farking know and are just guessing.